Close Menu X
Navigate

Lay Aside My Freedoms for 'Who?' - 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1

Sermon Series: Confused?

When I was a college student working on my undergraduate degree I was going to school in Raleigh, NC – which is where my grandparents also lived. Every once in a while they would be kind enough and generous enough to invite me out to eat with them. One of the places we went more often than any other place was Golden Corral (it was one of my grandfather’s favorite places to eat). While the food at Golden Corral certainly wasn’t gourmet, as a college student I loved it because it was a buffet. At that particular time in my life I was more concerned with the quantity of food rather than the quality of the food, so all-you-can-eat buffets were always okay with me.

Thinking about all-you-can-eat buffets like Golden Corral is intriguing to me. The amount of freedom you have is unbelievable! After you pay when you first come in, you can eat as much as you want, of whatever you want, in whatever order you want. You can start off with some hot food and a quick trip to the bakery section for one (or two) of those delicious yeast rolls. Then you can follow that up with some seasonal fruit to help cleanse the palate. Then you can make four different trips to the dessert bar for things like ice cream, cookies, cakes, and pies. And then if the mood hits you, you can make one more trip to the bakery for another one of those delicious rolls, or you can go back and finish things off with one more little piece of steak (just because you have a little room left in your stomach).

[As a side note – I’m still unsure why all-you-can-eat places like Golden Corral have salad bars. I mean come on, let’s be honest people – does anyone really want to eat a salad when you go to an all-you-can-eat buffet? No one who’s in the mood for a salad chooses an all-you-can-eat buffet – we go there for all the other stuff! But let’s also be honest – we feel a little guilty if we don’t at least eat a little salad (after all, it is probably the most healthy thing available). So personally I say do away with those silly salad bars – that way we don’t feel guilty about skipping it and we’ll have a little extra room for another one of those delicious rolls.]

The freedom to do whatever you want at an all-you-can-eat buffet is unreal. There aren’t workers standing around saying things like, “Have you had three helpings of vegetables? I’m afraid I can’t let you have any dessert until you have finished three helpings of vegetables.” Neither are there workers standing around saying, “I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your quota of delicious yeast rolls today. I’m not going to be able to allow you to take any more.” And perhaps the best thing is there isn’t anyone standing guard over the big soup bowls who would say, “Sir, these large soup bowls are for soup only. I’m afraid you’re going to have to use one of those very tiny bowls for the ice cream.” After you have paid for the buffet, you have the most amazing freedom to enjoy everything that has been prepared, however you would like.

But that also brings me to the final observation of this illustration. While we always have the freedom to eat whatever we want in whatever quantity we want when we go to Golden Corral, my guess is that we would practice that freedom and discipline ourselves differently in the middle of April then we would in the middle of November. Why? Because in the middle of November winter is setting in. During that time of year we wear long clothing and layer it on so that we will stay warm. If we consume a few extra calories or happen to put on an extra pound or two it’s no big deal – no one is going to notice. So in the middle of November we might make an extra trip (or two) to the dessert bar. However, in the middle of April we know that summer is right around the corner. That means we’ll be wearing shorts and bathing suits. At this time of year many of us are watching very carefully how many calories we are consuming and trying hard to take off that extra pound or two. So in the middle of April, while we have the freedom to eat as much off of the dessert bar as we want and to make as many trips to the dessert bar as we want, we will choose to give up that right and freedom to protect ourselves from consuming extra calories and putting on extra weight.

In scenarios like this, it’s not unheard of for an individual to lay aside a personal right or freedom that he/she has. Why? Because ultimately it is for something else that he/she is trying to achieve. At the core of the decision is a self-centered motivation (“I want to lose weight so that I don’t look too big in my bathing suit – so I’m going to skip out on dessert today”). But how often are we willing to lay aside a personal right or freedom for the good of another? Probably not very often. And yet this is how Paul says we ought to live as believers in Christ – not being concerned with our own rights and freedoms first, but being concerned first with God’s glory and with the good of others.

Chapters 8-10 have revealed to the readers of Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth that many of the Corinthian believers were confused about their rights and freedoms in Christ and what the basis for Christian behavior was. Many in the church at Corinth had wrongly identified knowledge and rights as the basis for Christian behavior. They thought that by obtaining greater knowledge they would be built up in their faith. But unfortunately their pursuit of knowledge lead them in greater pursuits of their own rights, which did not reflect true Christianity because their pursuits were all based in selfishness. Paul, on the other hand, had identified the basis of Christian behavior as love. Love always sought to edify and benefit others so that ultimately they might be saved.

In the previous paragraph (1 Corinthians 10:14-22) Paul wrapped up his argument on participating in idol feasts that were taking place in the pagan temples in the city of Corinth. Many of the Corinthian believers had believed that they could go to and participate in these feasts based on their ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms.’ Additionally, they had believed that attendance at pagan temples was a non-essential in regards to their faith, rather than an absolute. But that wasn’t the case for Paul. Paul understood attendance at pagan temples as an absolute because it was idolatry. Paul had corrected their misunderstanding, demonstrating that while there is only one true God, there are spiritual beings who are opposed to God (i.e. demons) and who disguise themselves as other gods. These other gods weren’t fictitious or imaginary concepts, they were real spiritual beings. So by attending and participating in these feasts, they were identifying themselves with that demon, in the same way that they identified themselves with Jesus whenever they participated in the Lord’s Supper. Paul argued that believers in Christ could not participate in the Lord’s Supper and then turn around and participate in an idol feast – they did not have freedom in Christ to do that.

Yet there were things that were non-essentials – things that did not play a crucial part in one’s faith. The church at Corinth, it seemed, still needed some clarity on these things. So in the last few verses of chapter 10 (1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1), Paul turned his attention to rights and freedoms concerning non-essentials that believers in Christ had. In order to do so he returned to the popular Corinthian slogan that he had already made reference to once before in 1 Corinthians 6:12. He quoted their slogan twice, each time following up the Corinthian slogan with a qualifying statement. “All things are lawful,” the believers in Corinth would say. “We have believed in Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection on our behalf, and are no longer bound by OT law. It is not our works or actions that save us, but the completed work of Jesus. Therefore, we are no longer bound to keeping OT laws, but we have freedom in Christ.” This was the way that many of the believers in Corinth lived their lives. So what Paul was seeing and hearing reports of was a great deal of “self-centered,” "rights-based" living among the believers in Corinth. As a result, Paul made a point in verse 23 (as he did in 6:12) to qualify their slogan in order to help the Corinthian believers to have a more Christ-centered, others-first perspective. “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up.” In turning his attention to things that were non-essentials in the faith, Paul was challenging the believers in Corinth not to look at things through the lense of permissibility, but rather through the lense of love. The more important question was not if believers in Christ had the freedom to do certain things, but whether or not such behavior/choices would be helpful to others and build others up. Paul went on to say that with greater clarity in verse 24, “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” One commentator said this, “‘Freedom’ does not mean ‘to seek my own good;’ it means to be free in Christ in such a way that one can truly seek to benefit and build up another person.”

In verses 25-27 Paul gave two specific examples of non-essentials and the freedom that believers in Christ had in regard to those non-essentials. Paul said, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For, ‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.’ If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” The issue of concern here was the consumption of meat because the meat market often sold meat that had been butchered by pagan priests as part of a pagan sacrifice. Jews had been forbidden to eat that kind of meat. But there was uncertainty among many Christians as to whether or not eating such meat was permissible for them. Many Christians had come out of Judaism, and some Gentiles converts considered Christianity a sect of the Jews. So what was a Christian to do in regards to meat purchased at the market? Were they to abstain from meat sold from the market entirely? Were they to investigate whether the meat they intended to purchase and eat had been part of a pagan sacrifice? How were they to handle such a situation?

Paul declared in those verses that meat was a non-essential to the Christian faith. In other words, God wasn’t concerned about the meat that an individual ate and the meat consumed by an individual did not impact his or her faith. Therefore, they could eat any of the meat sold at the meat market without investigating its origins and without it being a matter of conscience. That’s why Paul said, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” Because eating meat was a non-essential it was a matter that was outside the concern of conscience, so the believers in Corinth weren’t to try to make it one. Paul expressed his reason for this in verse 26 when he quoted the text of Psalm 24:1, “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” Paul’s argument was that the earth and everything in it was God’s creation and that He was the ultimate source. If it all originated with God, then nothing could really contaminate it, and there was no way that the consumption of that meat could cause one to fall into sin.

[As a side note – the idea of blessing the food we eat originated from Jewish rabbis in response to Psalm 24:1. They believed that because “the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” that an individual should bless God for his/her food; otherwise it was as if he/she was defrauding God.]

Not only did Paul say it was permissible for Christians to go to the meat market to purchase meat for themselves to eat, he also said that it was also permissible for them to go to an unbelievers house and to eat whatever was served to them there. “If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” The concern here was two fold: (1) Jews considered Gentiles unclean and did not eat meals with them. So what did this mean for Christians? Were Christians also to abstain from eating with Gentiles? Would that make them unclean? (2) There was no way for a believer in Christ to know where the meat being served to him/her had originated. Had it come from the market place? If so, was it part of an animal that had originally been sacrificed to a pagan god? For these reasons taking up a nonbeliever on his invitation to dinner seemed to be another gray area for believers in Christ where issues of freedom didn’t seem to be very clear. But just as Paul said in regards to buying and eating meat sold at the market, he said to go and to eat whatever was served without making it an issue of conscience.

The best way to understand verse 28 and the first part of verse 29 is to see it as a parenthetical explanation. In verses 25-27 Paul had given two examples of personal freedoms concerning two specific non-essentials. But personal freedoms always have to be conditioned by the ‘rule’ of verse 24 – to first seek the good of our neighbors. So verses 28-29a, as some commentators suggest, appear to be “a hypothetical example of a situation where the criterion of verse 24 would limit one’s freedom.” “But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience – I do not mean your conscience, but his.” The first question is who is the ‘someone’ that is providing the individual with insight about the meat’s origin. The language used would suggest that it is a nonbeliever who was also at the dinner. In the original Greek, the one speaking used a Greek word that meant, “sacrificial meat.” This particular word suggests that the individual was speaking from a pagan background. Jews and Christians (including Paul) used a different Greek word which meant “idol meat” to refer to meat that had been sacrificed to idols. So the one speaking up in verse 28 appears to be a nonbeliever (This is an important detail that we have to make note of.). Paul said that if a nonbeliever pointed out to you that the meat being served had originally been sacrificed to an idol, then the believer in Christ was not to eat the meat. Although Paul had just said in verses 25-27 that meat was a non-essential and that believers in Christ had the personal freedom to eat any meat without it being an issue of conscience, in this situation Paul instructed the believer in Christ not to eat it. Why? Paul answered: for the sake of that nonbeliever and his conscience. But that raises another question, “How would a nonbeliever’s conscience be affected by what a Christian did or did not do?” That is an excellent question. It does not appear in this situation that the nonbeliever was putting the believer to the test – to see whether or not he/she would eat the food. It seems more likely that the nonbeliever in this scenario was trying to help the believer in Christ out. As I mentioned earlier, many Gentiles saw Christianity as a sect of Judaism. It was also likely that many Gentiles knew that Jews were prohibited from eating meat sacrificed to idols. So as one commentator noted, “The one who has pointed out the sacrificial origins of this meat to a Christian has done so out of a sense of moral obligation to the Christian, believing that Christians, like Jews, would not eat such food. So as not to offend that person, nor his/her moral expectations of Christians, and precisely because it is not a matter of Christian moral consciousness, one should forbear under these circumstances.” In this particular example it is a nonbeliever who, feeling a sense of moral obligation, has attempted to make a believer in Christ aware of a situation in which he/she believed the Christians beliefs may be compromised. So in that situation Paul said the best thing to do was to refrain from eating – to lay aside one’s personal right and freedom for the good of his neighbor. [It is important to note: this was a nonbeliever’s conscience that was leading a believer to lay aside his freedom to eat the meat being served – not a fellow believer’s conscience that was leading to another believer laying aside his freedom. Paul does not allow any Christian to make food (or any other non-essential) a matter of Christian concern. We see that here as well as in the verses that will follow.]

In the second half of verse 29 Paul resumed the argument he was making for personal freedoms in areas of non-essentials. The point that he seemed to be trying to emphasize was that believers in Christ really do have freedom in matters of non-essentials. So if that was the case, why did some believers try to determine what other believers could or could not do in matters of non-essentials? Paul said, “For why is my liberty being determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I being denounced because of that for which I give thanks?” Remember the context – Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, which means he was writing to fellow believers in Christ. Apparently there were some in the church at Corinth (i.e. fellow believers) who were telling Paul that he could not eat meat that he had purchased at the meat market and they were condemning him when he did. If God wasn’t concerned about the meat that he was eating, why should another Christian be? Especially since Paul was genuinely grateful for God’s provision of the meat and was giving God thanks for His provision. How could another Christian sit in judgment of Paul over a non-essential for which Paul was genuinely grateful and was genuinely offering thanks? It made no sense. From Paul’s perspective there was no place for Christians to be either directing or judging other Christians in regards to non-essentials!

Paul did not end his words on the personal freedom of Christians there though. Paul concluded his thoughts on rights and freedoms by returning to the rule of verse 24, and finished with some words of clarification on that rule. “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (10:31-11:1). Paul understood and taught that all of our rights and freedoms as Christians have to be practiced in the context of two important rules: (1) Everything must be done to the glory of God, and (2) one must not give offense to anyone. Paul began to make these clarifications by starting with the issue at hand but quickly moving forward to a much broader perspective. “So whether you eat . . .” was Paul’s inclusion of those concerned about the issue of meat and other food laws. “. . . Or drink . . .” was the next logical addition since drinking is the common companion of eating. “. . . or whatever you do . . .” was Paul’s inclusion of any other non-essential that one could imagine. “. . . Do all to the glory of God.” The ultimate point for believers in Christ, particularly in regards to non-essentials, is that our actions and behaviors must be done so that they bring glory, honor, and praise to God the Father. If the behavior, action, or thought we are considering cannot be done for God’s glory then the believer in Christ should not do it.

Not only must our actions and behaviors be done for God’s glory, but Paul also said that we have to guard our actions and behaviors so that we, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God . . .” (verse 32). Paul seemed to have in mind here intentional actions and behaviors – meaning that believers in Christ were not to purposely pursue actions and behaviors that would harm others. It is important that we clarify Paul’s use of the phrase, “give no offense.” We tend to think of an “offense” as something that hurt someone else’s feelings. But this isn’t what Paul meant here in verse 32. Paul meant that believers in Christ were not to behave in such a way that would prevent another person (whether Jew or Greek) from hearing the Gospel or that would alienate one who is already a brother or sister in Christ. Paul’s words in verse 32 added an important qualification to the freedoms of believers in Christ. The believers in Corinth (as well as believers in Christ today) had to understand that their freedom did not mean that they could do whatever they pleased without any regard to others. At the same time they had to understand that their freedoms weren’t dictated by the conscience of another believer. The freedoms they practiced had to be done for God’s glory AND for the sake of the Gospel (i.e. that all might be saved – see verse 33).

Paul continued his statement about not giving offense to anyone in verse 33 where he said, “just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, no seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.” Let’s be clear from the beginning here that Paul wasn’t striving to be a people pleaser. He made that clear in some of his other NT letters:

“But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the Gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).

Paul understood that the message of the Gospel was offensive to some and folly to others (1 Corinthians 1:18). Paul’s concern in the context of verse 33 was that his conduct would not stand in the way of nonbelievers being saved and that it would build up those who were believers in Christ. In regards to his relationship with nonbelievers he chose not to seek his own advantage, but continually chose instead to seek the good and the advantage of many because he had made the rule of verse 24 (“let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor”) the qualifying rule for his own personal freedom. Why? So “that they may be saved.” Paul had said earlier in 9:20-23 that he was striving to live his life among those who were lost with great purpose. Listen to the last part of verse 22 and 23, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the Gospel . . .”

We live in a culture that constantly feeds us the message, “Live for yourself! Gratify your own heart! Do what feels good and right for you!” But this isn’t what living your life for the sake of the Gospel looks like. Living your life for the sake of the Gospel is going to mean that there are times when we have to stop seeking our own advantage and living for the advantage of another – which is ultimately that they might be saved.

How do we begin to do this? Paul said to start by looking at his own life and to become an imitator of him as he was following after Christ. “Become imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” The more I study Paul’s letters and examine his life, the more I become convinced that while his life looked radical and crazy at times, Paul may have had the clearest understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Christ and he lived his life committed to those convictions. Paul didn’t say this from a position of pride and arrogance. He said this to a church of believers in Christ who were terribly confused about the Gospel’s implications on their lives. Not only did they need words of clarification, but they also needed a model to follow. So Paul encouraged them to follow Him as He was doing His best to follow after Jesus. Christ was the ultimate example for those who wanted to live their lives for the sake of the Gospel. Paul wrote in Romans 15:3, “For Christ did not please Himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’” All of these exhortations that Paul had encouraged the believers in Corinth to live by weren’t his own ideas or his own words of wisdom. They were observations that he had made from Jesus’ life and ministry. These are the things he had seen and learned from Jesus – so they were thing that he had committed himself to. Now we need to follow Paul’s example.

Let’s take a few minutes now and try to make some application to this text. The question we need to wrestle with is, “How do we begin to flesh out some of these teachings in our context?” Let’s begin by stating plainly two truths and then making an important contextual observation. Truth no. 1: Believers in Christ really do have freedom in matters of non-essentials and should not be restricted by other believers in regards to these matters. Truth no. 2: Personal freedom is not the greatest concern of the Christian life – doing everything for the glory of God and seeking the good of others (so that they might be saved) is.

Here is the important contextual observation as noted by one commentator, “In most contemporary settings the ‘offended’ are not unbelievers or new Christians, but those who tend to confuse their own regulations with the eternal will of God.” In other words, those of us who have been believers in Christ for a longer amount of time are the ones who tend to get offended by things that other believers in Christ do, that are ultimately non-essentials about which we don’t need to worry.

Think of it this way. One of my favorite pastors, Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington illustrates ‘absolutes’ and ‘non-essentials’ as national and state borders. He says wars are fought over national borders. There may be disagreements across state borders, but wars are not fought over them. In regards to our lives as believers, we will fight to uphold absolutes of our faith (national borders). Some examples are:

• The inerrancy of Scripture
• God as Trinitarian
• Humanity as sinful
• Jesus as fully God and fully man
• The virgin birth
• Jesus’ sinless life
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Christ alone for Salvation
• A literal hell for those who reject Christ

These are beliefs over which we cannot budge. These are foundational truths for which we have an obligation to point out and call out those who teach otherwise. These are absolutes over which we would break fellowship with one who said that he/she was a believer in Christ but did not hold to.

The sad thing among many believers is that we are fighting wars over non-essentials (state borders). We feel so strongly about our own personal convictions that we will draw up battle lines and break fellowship with other believers in Christ over issues that in the long run aren’t essentials. Some examples of non-essentials over which many Christians fight are:

• Spiritual gifts (such as speaking in tongues)
• Worship styles
• Bible translations
• Dress
• Models of church government
• Baptism
• Political party (i.e. republican or democrat)
• Smoking
• Drinking
• Dancing

Mark Driscoll says in regards to these things, “. . . like states we must be able to live as a loving and unified nation. We cannot turn our state borders into national borders and refuse to live at peace in unity and love with those who live in other proverbial states. Simply, the state borders should not be battle lines where personal and theological wars are fought because bigger things are at stake, such as the evangelizing of lost people and the planting of missional churches.”

We can’t be baited into conflicts with other believers in Christ because of our personal preferences. We have freedom in regards to non-essentials as do other believers in Christ. Instead we need to be evaluating our personal use of the freedoms we have. Are we using our freedoms to the glory of God? And are we making sure that the use of our freedoms aren’t becoming hindrances for non-believers who still need to respond to the good news of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection on their behalf? There are people all around us who don’t know Jesus as Savior and Lord and who are dying and going to hell. But few of them are hearing that good news from us because we aren’t willing to lay aside our own freedoms long enough to seek their good and their salvation.

 

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post have been disabled.